About the Alliance between Workers and Peasants

There is much contention in Marxist theoretical circles about the potential for a revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. Many in the West may be confused about this debate because they believe that there is no such thing as "the Peasantry" anymore. That certainly is the case in all the developed countries of Europe and North America. However, a peasantry of sorts does exist in the developing world.

How can we define people as peasants when feudalism no longer exists? We much shape our answer around how peasantry functioned. In the feudal era, peasants were subsistence farmers who owed a share of their crops to their feudal lord in return for protection and a place to live and farm. Modern peasantry is similar but with a subtle difference. Modern peasants are subsistence farmers who either own their land but the plot is too small to form a profitable commercial operation or, more commonly, who rent their land from a larger landowner in exchange for either money rent or rent in the form of a portion of their crop earnings. This makes modern peasantry virtually the same as medieval peasantry, minus the religiously motivated hierarchy of feudalism.

So, how does the existence of modern peasantry matter to Marxists? The simple conclusion is that these modern peasants make logical allies for the revolutionary proletariat in places where the proletariat is not large. In fact, the Marxist school of Maoism believes that in unindustrialized states only an alliance between the Proletariat and the peasantry can overthrow capitalism. This notion makes sense.

If it makes so much sense then why is there contention between Marxists on this issue? Most of the disagreement stems from the idea that only the proletariat can be revolutionary in character. What does that mean? Basically, it is a tenant of Marxism that the proletariat is oppressed in a special way by Capitalism, namely by being alienated from the fruits of their labor, and that means that only the proletariat can be truly revolutionary. Other groups can join the revolution but they would not be considered fundamentally revolutionary. This assertion makes sense but following it dogmatically can reduce the chances for revolution in underdeveloped areas to nearly zero. This is because in underdeveloped economies the proletariat may form a small majority of the population.

Besides this theoretical disagreement, what other reasons would Marxists have to oppose an alliance with the peasantry? Because the peasantry is not fundamentally revolutionary, the fear is that if they were to be allies in a revolution then they would extort concessions from the proletariat that would not benefit the development of Socialism. One example concerns land reform. Collectivization is the fundamental form of agricultural organization in a Socialist society. Peasants would be vehemently opposed to collectivization and would instead press the proletariat to enact land redistribution. While not inherently counter-revolutionary, this can hold back Socialist development because land redistribution would enable to peasants to become petty bourgeois landowners and allow the continued existence of market economics in agriculture. This is but one of numerous examples.

Despite all of this, it is my belief that the positives outweigh the negatives in many instances regarding the alliance between peasants and the proletariat. This is because in  undeveloped economies the only hope for revolution may be in the alliance between workers and peasants. The proletariat must always be careful to maintain the revolutionary character of society but some concession may be necessary to facilitate revolution. However, given the proper path of economic development towards industrialization some concession are not necessarily a bad thing. The uneven development of Capitalism around the world all but necessitates the alliance in some areas because there are likely to always to be places in the world where the peasantry outnumbers the proletariat. Without the alliance of workers and peasants those areas may never see revolution.

The Marxist Argument in Favor of State Capitalism

Following the Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin stated that he believed that the State should take on the functions of the capitalists by planning and directing the economy. Lenin himself called this state ownership of the means of production State Capitalism but he did not mean it in the slanderous sense that the term carries among Marxists today. Today, many Marxists use the term to deride the policies of Stalin and as the beginning point of their criticism of the Soviet Union. I believe that State Capitalism can in fact be a good method for the eventual development of Socialism and then Communism.

First, what is State Capitalism? State Capitalism is, put simply, the State ownership of the means of production. In a proletarian democracy the State is in the service of the proletariat and so in this way under State Capitalism the proletariat owns the means of production through the State by proxy. This however should be distinguished from State Capitalism under a bourgeois democracy where the State would instead be owned by the capitalists. For this reason, State Capitalism would only be desirable under proletarian democracy. Thus State Capitalism holds a precarious position because of the role it can play depending on the ruling political organization.

Next, why is State Capitalism good in proletarian democracy? Following a successful revolution it will be necessary for the new socialist state to set priorities for the redistribution of wealth and commodities as a way to ensure that the needs of the proletariat are met and to ensure the destruction of the capitalist class. These goal cannot be quickly achieved without centralized direction of some kind. Therefore, the ownership of the means of productions through the State is advisable. While the direct ownership of the means of production by the proletariat would be able to achieve the same goal, it would be less efficient because of the disjointed nature of the redistribution in such a decentralized system. In the event of a peaceful transition away from Capitalism, State Capitalism would be the most logical step. This would most likely be in the form of the nationalization of all industries. The State would then become the guarantor of the proletariat's need and work to redistribute wealth in the economy.

All of this is not to say that State Capitalism is Socialism, it is not. However, State Capitalism is in my opinion like Socialism in that it can be a transitional stage on the way to Communism. As the wealth in the economy is redistributed, the capitalist class is destroyed, and the needs and wants of the proletariat satisfactorily met the system would need to transition to Socialism, or the direct ownership by the proletariat of the means of production. This would remove the State from its role as economic planner and in its place the proletariat would directly assume the role of managing the production and distribution of goods and services. The State could then transition to being a kind of watchdog to ensure that Capitalism does not reemerge. As the proletariat more efficiently distributes goods and services, the State would no longer have any need to exist. This would lead to the State ceasing to exist and would finally usher in true Communism.

I feel that I must state again that State Capitalism is not meant as an end state, a necessity, or even necessarily desirable. My intention is to show that State Capitalism under a proletarian democracy could be used to speed up the transition to Socialism or at least to ensure that such a transition happened efficiently. Too often State Capitalism is described as Capitalism with a Marxist face. Instead we should try ad view it as one of many possible tools in the transition from Capitalism to Communism.

I also fell the need to describe some of the potential pitfalls of State Capitalism. We can learn much from the failure of State Capitalism in the the Soviet Union and China. In the USSR we saw the State latch on to its role as economic planner and refused to give up its status. This led to the entrenchment of the state bureaucracy and the eventual failure of the USSR due to economic stagnation and poor management. The opposite has happened in China. Because State Capitalism in China failed to properly industrialize the nation, when the US came knocking with offers to build factories on the condition that corporations be allowed to run them, the Chinese jumped on the opportunity. This ushered in the end of State Capitalism in China and the restoration of true Capitalism. Both of these examples can occur under State Capitalism given enough time and so a rapid transition from State Capitalism to Socialism in a necessity. However, given these potential problems, it is still my belief that effective use of State Capitalism can be used as a way to transition from Capitalism to Socialism efficiently. By using the State to direct all of the economic powers of society towards increased production we could move into a post-scarcity society in which Socialism can thrive. In fact it has often been noted by many Marxist theorists that without the proper level of economic development Socialism is doomed to fail. State Capitalism can be the engine that drives that development.

I would like to counter some possible criticism stemming from the belief that I am trying to assert a more or less gradual change from Capitalism to Socialism. Rather, my emphasis in using State Capitalism is that it much be coupled with rapid and radical changes in economic conditions. Failure to do so could result in the entrenchment of State Capitalism as in the USSR or the reversal of the revolution and the reemergence of Capitalism as we have seen in China. I would also like to say that I am not saying the State Capitalism must be implemented. If in the course of the revolution it becomes apparent that a direct transition to Socialism is possible then by all means that is the more favorable route. But given the current distribution of wealth across the globe it is my belief that some period of State Capitalism would be necessary in order to bring those less developed parts of the world up to a modern standard of living. By using the State as the engine of this process we could quickly usher in a new age for humanity where no person is forced to go without the basic necessities of life simply because of the economic conditions where they live.

Looking Past Election Day

Well yesterday the forces of reaction and repression won a resounding victory in the US elections. We will be faced for at least the next two years by a Congress that will work tirelessly to restrict the rights of women and minorities, give tax breaks to millionaires and corporations, and refuse to help the working class. All I can say to my fellow Americans is that you have brought this upon yourself. All those leftists and liberals who refuse, for one random reason or another, to vote against these forces of reaction have allowed them to win. All those people who don't care about politics until the State comes smashing in their door or restricting their rights are equally, if not more, to blame. We have a culture of mass political apathy in this country. We only seem to care when we are placed in the crosshairs by our government.

Young people in particular need to get their heads out of their asses and go make their voices heard. I am 24 and I have no problem saying that most people in my generation could give two shits less about politics. Sure we have issues we care about just like anyone else, but we systematically refuse to act on those beliefs. The Millenial generation is the largest and most left-leaning generation in American history, and yet we don't vote. If we have a 70% turnout rate (comparable to our older and much more conservative parents and grandparents) then we could single-handedly change the course of elections. But instead we are more worried about going to parties, sleeping in, and browsing the internet. 27.4 percent of the population is between the ages of 18 and 35 and yet we only account for roughly 15% of people who turn out to vote in an election and that's in years with Presidential elections. Voters are disproportionally old, white, and male and so their much more conservative views are more strongly represented in our elected officials. This information should not be new to anyone who has studies elections in the slightest.

What frustrates me the most about the fact that my fellow Millenials refuse to vote is that we have the most to lose by not voting. We are strongly effected by political decisions made in Washington in which we take no active interest. Take for example student debt. Until 2005 most student loan debt was dischargable in bankruptcy. In 2005 Congress decided, in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, that students should be held accountable for our debt even if we will never be able to pay it back despite the fact that almost all other forms of debt can be discharged in bankruptcy. Today this means that the 1 trillion dollars in current student loan debt can never be discharged and we will forced to pay it back in full even if that means garnishing our wages for the entirety of our lives. This is a political decision that we are directly effected by and yet we refuse to mobilize over. If we as a generation decided to march on Washington and demand that our debt be treated the same as every other kind of debt we could change the law. But instead we are so focused on the here and now that we don't even realize the crushing weight of our student loans until years after we graduate and suddenly find ourselves unable to pay back our debt. We are the most heavily indebted generation in American history and most of us haven't even gotten into the workforce yet. Unless we as a generation decide to act on this issue then we will see another Great Depression caused by our inability to spend money in the economy because we will be more concerned with paying back our huge debts. Keep in mind the current status of student loan debt results from the decades long push by parents, schools, and society at large that "college is the only way to get ahead" and so college, and the massive expenses it entails, have been billed to us as an utter necessity of life. I didn't intend to go on a tirade about student loans (that is a whole series of posts on its own) but it is just one of a million possible examples of what can happen when we refuse to vote.


So for the next two years we get to look forward to more of the same from Congress. I would love to see them get all conservative crazy just so the American people can see just how bad the beast they elected can be. The only saving grace is that the Presidency is still out of Republican hands so hopefully nothing too bad gets through. We just have to hope and pray that 2016 isn't as bad as 2014.